re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA

quote:BS, you have no idea what you are talking about. Drs have to order the MRIs for these people if not they will be sued. Drs don't have a choice, if one is required it has to be ordered and here is the catch. If a patient comes into a private hospital and needs care and then has to be seen by the Dr later at his private practice, the Dr has to pay for the MRI! Go ask some trauma surgeons at a private hospital how that works. You would be shocked.

I specifically said an MRI, because it is a very expensive, and costly procedure. It is also considered a non-emergent diagnostic tool.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 3:52 pm to Womski)

A few things about EMTALA, the law that was passed in the early 1980's (NOT 1960's, as someone posted earlier) that requires hospitals that receive federal funding to provide emergency care (yes, there are a few exceptions to which EMTALA does not apply), regardless of ability to pay (or citizenship).

quote:What are some of the limits of EMTALA?

EMTALA does not protect you from bills or collection efforts after the services have been provided.

EMTALA does not obligate the hospital to treat you once your condition has been stabilized.

EMTALA does not obligate the hospital to treat you if the initial screening reveals your situation is not an emergency.

EMTALA does not cover you once you have been admitted to the hospital. You can be transferred to a charity or county hospital if a new emergency arises.

EMTALA does not require that an ambulance take you to a particular hospital.

Also, as for an automobile liability insurance policy bought on the private market being a requirement (only for those who drive)... that is not entirely true (not in Texas, at least).

You can deposit $55,000 with the county judge, and that counts as satisfying the "financial responsibility" requirement.

quote:§ 601.123. DEPOSIT OF CASH OR CASHIER'S CHECK WITH COUNTY JUDGE. (a) A person may establish financial responsibility by making a deposit with the county judge of the county in which the motor vehicle is registered.

(b) The deposit must be made in cash or a cashier's check in the amount of at least $55,000.

(c) On receipt of the deposit, the county judge shall issue to the person making the deposit a certificate stating that a deposit complying with this section has been made. The certificate must be acknowledged by the sheriff of that county and filed with the department.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 3:58 pm to Womski)

quote:It's time we started acting like a modern country. Everyone is going to die, the sooner we accept an approach like the matrix approach, the sooner we can establish an objective approach to our healthcare, and all live on the same page. It will weed out the lazy and uneducated.

Ok, can I be the one who gets to decide who gets what kind of care???

Because I've got a neighbor who is really getting on my nerves, is somewhat advanced in years, but just won't die, because he's taking some life saving medicine.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas)

quote:NC, I'm going to jump ahead alittle here, because I thin kyou may the ideal individual with which to discuss my personal predicament anonomously.

I currently hold undivided interests in assests with some of my family members. One of these family members is currently uncovered in tersm of both health and liability. I am currently trying to incorporate our assests and procure at least liability insurance.

In addition to her not having health insurance coverage, neither does her 17 (soon to be 18) year old daughter. My mother is trying to convince me to adopt this young women when she turns 18 so that I may include her on my health care insurance.

My question is, would that be legal? Would it be ethical? Would it be ethical to leave her to the vagaries of the public system?

Needless to say, the ACA would allow me to cover her through her 26th year.

Was away at a meeting. Just getting back.

Sounds like a very generous consideration on your part WT. Very!

In terms of costs, obviously some variability, but her individual health insurance rates will jump from around $1200 to ~$3000/yr. Deductible costs on top of that. Certainly one option would be to simply cover those costs for her -- rates + deductible.

I don't know what the differential would be between that vs rolling her into your policy. I'd suspect it would be nowhere near a level justifying adoption if HC cost was the only basis of consideration. Sounds like it isn't though.

Legal? Wouldn't want to guess. There are others here far more capable of addressing that.

Ethical? IMO there'd be no question about it. Sounds like she'd be an exceptionally fortunate young lady.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!)

Whether it is a right or not is silly to argue about. The fact is everyone in this country gets healthcare. It is just delivered in the most costly and inefficient manner imaginable - start with family medicine in emergency rooms. If you have insurance, your premium subsidizes this. I write the Blue Cross check for my company every month - it has doubled in the past 7 years. The more people/or their employer that are paying something into the pot the better. We all subsidize Walmart and other big box stores employees healthcare with medicaid. Their worker's qualify for food stamps as well. In 2011 about $2.6 billion worth. Those low, low prices aren't cheap. This discussion shouldn't be about the minutia or whether it is a "right" but how to provide healthcare that we are already providing in a more cost effective manner. Let's get those silly arse Walton women to pony up for their employees and maybe my Blue Cross will not double in the next 7 years. This is a serious problem for all you deficit hawks - I'm one too - but just throwing rocks at Obamacare doesn't solve anything. Where's the other sides plan?

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:21 pm to WildTchoupitoulas)

quote:People forget the bottom line of PPACA: that everyone is entitled to healthcare as human beings

Does the fact that states require liability insurance for those who own vehicles (with the exception of those who can cough up enough cash to satisfy the financial responsibility requirement -- Louisiana allows this too -- imply that everyone has a "right" to a vehicle?

No, certainly not.

Similarly, the mandate to buy insurance coverage does not necessarily imply any rights to the services provided by healthcare professionals.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:21 pm to NC_Tigah)

quote:her individual health insurance rates will jump from around $1200 to ~$3000/yr

"jump"? They're currently $0. Or are you referring to pre and post ACA? In other words she could currently get an individual plan for $1200/year? That's less than my HMO just for me. I was thinking that an individual policy would be way higher.

Yeah, I don't have any kids, and she's one of three heirs anyway, and the most needy in terms of what her parents (don't) bring to the table. Well, that and she's gorgeous, smart and works harder than her mom ever did - and her dad is off in God knows where. And I'm getting her just in time, she starts college next year! (uh, boy...)

But I ain't covering her mom! That's why I'm trying to protect our shared assets in other ways.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:27 pm to texashorn)

quote:Does the fact that states require liability insurance for those who own vehicles (with the exception of those who can cough up enough cash to satisfy the financial responsibility requirement -- Louisiana allows this too -- imply that everyone has a "right" to a vehicle?

No, allow me to type this out a THIRD time...

There is an example out there where the government has a legal mandate which is being provided for by the private sector, under oversight by the government, and which is profitable.

Forget about cars and forget about rights and forget about earnest money, think about the way this 'hypothetical' system works:

Legal Mandate.

Private service.

Gov't oversight.

Profit.

I believe that out there somewhere the model above exists within our system.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:30 pm to texashorn)

quote:Does the fact that states require liability insurance for those who own vehicles (with the exception of those who can cough up enough cash to satisfy the financial responsibility requirement -- Louisiana allows this too -- imply that everyone has a "right" to a vehicle? No, certainly not. Similarly, the mandate to buy insurance coverage does not necessarily imply any rights to the services provided by healthcare professionals.

Ok, fine, lets use the automobile argument.

You don't want to buy auto insurance, then fine, don't drive. Nobody's forcing you to. I get it.

Now, if everyone could say they're not planning on getting sick, then fine. However, everyone reading this post is going to need healthcare at some point in their life.

What about the people who are healthy and die instantly, you say? Well, any insurance premiums they paid wont matter because they will be dead, and are utterly incapable of caring.

That's the whole issue. People turn this into a political argument, when at the end of the day it stems from natural law. If you want to live in America until you die, then you have to be insured. If not, then leave.

Oh, and the subsidies are not as extreme as I've seen posted on here. If you are poverty stricken, you don't have to pay. About 6% of the country is on welfare, so that argument belongs in a welfare debate.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA (Posted on 11/29/12 at 4:30 pm to texashorn)

quote:EMTALA does not protect you from bills or collection efforts after the services have been provided.

No one said it did.

quote:EMTALA does not obligate the hospital to treat you once your condition has been stabilized.

Ok. They fix you up and send you on your way. They cannot discharge a patient that needs monitoring. In other words, a guy that is admitted to icu after an auto accident and whose condition stabilizes isn't going to be wheeled out to the curb and left.

quote:EMTALA does not obligate the hospital to treat you if the initial screening reveals your situation is not an emergency.

Because of threat from lawsuits, almost any condition can and is viewed as a potential emergency. If I show up with a cut, they are going to clean and dress it.

quote:EMTALA does not cover you once you have been admitted to the hospital. You can be transferred to a charity or county hospital if a new emergency arises.

What they fail to mention is that a patient has a right of refusal. If they come to me and say "we are going to transfer you to charity" I can say no, I want to be treated here. By law they cannot refuse my request and must treat me at their facility.